ABX LOGISTICS: Settles US Freight Forward Surcharge Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide NV/SA has entered into an agreement tosettle a US class action lawsuit alleging anticompetitivepractices in relation to certain surcharges for freight forwardingservices. The class action lawsuit is related to ABX LOGISTICSWorldwide NV/SA, a subsidiary taken over in 2008 in connectionwith DSV's acquisition of ABX LOGISTICS.

The settlement, which is subject to US court approval, providesthat ABX LOGISTICS Worldwide NV/SA will pay an amount of USD3.5million.

DSV intends to seek reimbursement of the financial loss from theprevious owners of ABX LOGISTICS in accordance with the agreementsmade with these parties. On this basis, DSV believes that thecase will have no impact on the financial position of the Group.

APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Judge Terminates Class Action Over Drink Prices-----------------------------------------------------------------Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federaljudge on Jan. 30 tossed a class action accusing Applebee'sInternational Inc. and International House of Pancakes LLC ofviolating state consumer law by excluding drink prices from theirmenus, saying a revised complaint wasn't enough to save the case.

U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Simandle said named plaintiffCandice Watkins' latest complaint failed to correct the defects inher previous complaint, which the court dismissed in August, andconsequently terminated the case.

The plaintiffs failed to seriously challenge the board's financialdisinterestedness and independence from the deal or allege factssupporting the claim that the board consciously disregarded itsduties in securing the takeover, according to Vice Chancellor JohnW. Noble.

CANADA: Three Law Firms Join Forces in Data Breach Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------The Telegram reports that St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham isjoining a consortium of three law firms from across the country ina national class-action lawsuit against the Attorney General ofCanada.

The basis of the legal action is the breach of privacy of morethan half a million people in the recent loss of Canada StudentLoan borrower information by Human Resources and SkillsDevelopment Canada.

On Jan. 11, the federal government announced that personal andfinancial information of about 583,000 student loan borrowers waslost.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada said an externalhard drive containing data on Canada Student Loans Programborrowers from 2000-2006 was lost from an office in Gatineau, Que.

"Bob Buckingham Law is pleased to join with some of the mostexperienced and successful class action lawyers in the country.This consortium will position us to bring this matter to a fairand reasonable resolution for the hundreds of thousands ofCanadians affected," Mr. Buckingham said.

"The loss of confidential personal information is a serious issuein the digital age," said Mr. Strosberg. "Through this classaction, our experienced national legal team will seek to hold theGovernment of Canada accountable."

The consortium will be seeking general damages for negligence,breach of privacy and breach of contract, along with damages foractual out-of-pocket expenses, costs and lost time.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Remains Pending------------------------------------------------------------On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitrationcaptioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and CorinthianColleges, Inc. was filed with the American ArbitrationAssociation. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC(heating, ventilation and airconditioning system) students fromthe Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The arbitration demandalleges violations of California's Business and Professions CodeSections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional deceit, negligentmisrepresentation, breach of contract and unjustenrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies andmisrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVACstudents in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oaklandcampuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery ofcompensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution andattorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVACprograms at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during itsownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that thearbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreementis not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22,2011, a California state court judge refused to confirm thearbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded the matterto the arbitrator for further consideration. The Company hasappealed the state court order. The Company believes thecomplaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itselfagainst these allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Ex-Students' Suits-----------------------------------------------------------Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to defend itself against classaction lawsuits initiated by former students in California,according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2012.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedentedincrease in putative class action lawsuits by former students. Inmany of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought torepresent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in thecomplaint. The Company believes these lawsuits are largely theresult of negative publicity-and aggressive lawyer recruitment ofpotential clients-surrounding the Department of Education's("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and otherrelated matters that occurred during that time period. Most ofthe cases filed during that time have since been dismissed. Invirtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffscite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,public statements by elected officials and/or other negative mediacoverage in their complaints, although the locations of thestudents, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claimsdiffer. The Company believes all of the following complaints arecontractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrationsbetween the named students and the Company, and the Company hasmoved to compel these cases to arbitration.

Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended any Everest institution in the United States or Canada from January 2005 to the present; all persons who attended any Heald institution from January 2009 to the present

Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive claims to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims to remain before the court; the Company appealed the order as it relates to the injunctive claims, and the court of appeal stayed the district court action pending the appeal.

(II) Dated Filed: March 11, 2011

Named Plaintiffs and Campus Attended: Noravel Arevalo and fourteen former students at the Company's Everest College location in Alhambra, California

Description of Putative Class: The matters are proceeding on a individual basis.

Status Update: Individual arbitration demands have been filed, and arbitration hearings are scheduled to begin during the quarter ending March 31, 2013.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiariesvigorously in all of these matters.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California'sAlameda Superior Court. A virtually identical action with thesame caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel onSeptember 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at theCompany's Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allegeviolations of California's Business and Professions Code Section17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay forall hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and allegedfailure to pay wages upon termination. The Alameda complaint hassince been voluntarily dismissed. While the scope of the putativeclass is not clear, the remaining Orange County action appears toseek certification of a class of current and former admissionsrepresentatives over the last four years at the Company'sCalifornia campuses. The Company believes the allegations arewithout merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Has Resolved "Reed" Arbitration Demand-----------------------------------------------------------Corinthian Colleges, Inc. disclosed in its February 1, 2013, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended December 31, 2012, that it has resolved theindividual arbitration demand by "Mr. Reed" for an immaterialamount.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captionedReed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and CorinthianColleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,Texas. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of the Company. Plaintiff purports to be a formerstudent in the Company's Everest University Online operations.The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of EverestUniversity Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or anexemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies tooffer online courses in the State of Texas and to register itsadmissions representatives with the State of Texas. The plaintiffseeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted toreceive distance education from Everest University Online whileresiding in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,pre-and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,cost of lawsuit, and such other relief as the court deems proper.On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to bindingarbitration, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a putative classaction demand in arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that thearbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreementis susceptible to class-wide resolution, but did not addresswhether a class should be certified. The Company appealed theclause-construction decision, and on June 15, 2012, the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion overturning thearbitrator's decision and ruling that the enrollment agreement isnot susceptible to class-wide resolution. The plaintiff's motionfor a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit was denied, and thedeadline to seek review by the United States Supreme Court passedwithout action by the plaintiff. The Company subsequentlyresolved the individual arbitration demand by Mr. Reed for animmaterial amount.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties Continue to Negotiate---------------------------------------------------------------On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captionedAlisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and CorinthianSchools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filedin the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. CorinthianSchools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.Plaintiffs were thirty-three individuals who purport to be currentand/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Programat the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois. Thecomplaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the IllinoisConsumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjustenrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies andmisrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assistingprogram at the Merrionette Park campus. The plaintiffs sought tocertify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in theCompany's Medical Assisting program at the Everest CollegeMerrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filingof the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages onbehalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitivedamages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenueand benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, andsuch other relief as the court deemed proper. The Company removedthe case to federal court and moved to compel individualarbitrations, which the court granted. Thirty-one plaintiffsfiled individual demands in arbitration, and individualarbitration hearings commenced during the quarter ended June 30,2012. The Company and the plaintiffs have since agreed to holdthe hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions.

The Company continues to believe these matters are without meritand will continue to defend itself vigorously if a reasonableresolution cannot be achieved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Calif. Suit Dismissal Pending--------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities classaction lawsuit in California remains pending, according toCorinthian Colleges, Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended December 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captionedJimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filedin the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons whoacquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and JackMassimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all ofwhom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaintalleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, thedefendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed todisclose certain material facts about the condition of theCompany's business and prospects during the putative class period,causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock atartificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claim thatMessrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts indamages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as otherrelief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaintcaptioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. wasfiled by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California. The Tottencomplaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitionedthe Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs. On March 30,2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System andStichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs,and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for leadplaintiffs, in the consolidated action. Lead plaintiffsthereafter filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and theCompany moved to dismiss the second amended consolidatedcomplaint. On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court grantedthe Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On February29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (the"TAC") in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the Companyand the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. OnAugust 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's andthe individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice. Theplaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, and the Company willcontinue to defend itself and its current and former officersvigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Trial in "Madden" Suit to Occur This Quarter-----------------------------------------------------------------Trial is scheduled to occur during the quarter ending March 31,2013, in the class action lawsuit brought by Roger Madden,according to Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended December 31, 2012.

On November 17, 2008, an action captioned Mary Credille and RogerMadden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and formeremployees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The two originally-named plaintiffs are former employees of theCompany's Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive propercompensation for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violationof the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Credille hasvoluntarily dismissed her claims against the Company. On December8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff Madden's motion toconditionally certify a collective action to include those currentand former admissions representatives at the Company's Chicagocampus who also satisfy additional requirements. A total of threeformer employees, including Madden, have elected to participate inthe lawsuit. Trial is scheduled to occur during the quarterending March 31, 2013. The Company believes the allegations arewithout merit and intends to continue vigorously defending itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondarycareer education companies in North America. The Company offers avariety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's andmaster's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,business, technology, and criminal justice. The Company alsooffers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business andcriminal justice.

Mr. Crowell contends that in approving the Proposed Acquisition,the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties ofloyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure to CreXusshareholders by agreeing to sell CreXus without first taking stepsto ensure that he and Class members would obtain adequate, fairand maximum consideration under the circumstances. He argues thatthe Company's true value is compromised by the considerationoffered in the Proposed Acquisition and that the ProposedAcquisition is the product of the Board's breaches of fiduciaryduty, and aiding and abetting by Annaly and CreXus.

Mr. Crowell is a holder of CreXus common stock.

CreXus is a Maryland corporation based in New York. CreXusacquires, manages and finances, directly or through itssubsidiaries, commercial mortgage loans and other commercial realestate debt, commercial real property, commercial mortgage-backedsecurities and other commercial and residential real estate-related assets. Annaly, a Maryland corporation owns, manages, andfinances a portfolio of real estate related investment securities,including mortgage pass-through certificates, collateralizedmortgage obligations, agency callable debentures, and othersecurities representing interests in or obligations backed bypools of mortgage loans. Annaly is the beneficial owner of9,527,778 shares of CreXus common stock representing approximately12.4% of all outstanding Company shares. Merger Sub is a Marylandcorporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Annaly. TheIndividual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Still Pending in California------------------------------------------------------------In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and MoisesZepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of California. These lawsuits containallegations related to violations of aspects of the ElectronicFund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a previoussettlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or allege thatPayPal, a subsidiary of eBay Inc., improperly held users' funds orotherwise improperly limited users' accounts. These lawsuits seekdamages as well as changes to PayPal's practices, among otherremedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violationsof the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations ofother laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal tosignificant liability. Any changes to PayPal's practicesresulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incursignificant costs and to expend substantial resources, which coulddelay other planned product launches or improvements and furtherharm the Company's business.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

EBAY INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violation Suits vs. Units------------------------------------------------------------eBay Inc. continues to defend its subsidiaries against classaction lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act, according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2012.

Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containingallegations that the Company's businesses violated the TCPA.Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California in February 2012) containsallegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products andservices were sent via text message to mobile phones without priorconsent. Murray v. Bill Me Later (filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois in June 2012) containsallegations that Bill Me Later made calls featuring artificial orprerecorded voices without prior consent. These lawsuits seekdamages (including statutory damages) and injunctive relief, amongother remedies. Given the enormous number of communications theCompany sends to its users, a determination that there have beenviolations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later'spractices (or those of any of the Company's other companies) underthe TCPA or other communications-based statutes could expose theCompany to significant damage awards that could, individually orin the aggregate, materially harm its business.

EBAY INC: Suits vs. StubHub Remain Pending in Various States------------------------------------------------------------Class action lawsuits over the resale of tickets remain pending,according to eBay Inc.'s February 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class actionlawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHubsold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concerttickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets wereresold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resaleprice law (which has been subsequently amended). In February2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment, concluding that immunity under the CommunicationsDecency Act did not apply. The trial court further held thatStubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive tradepractices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, andcertified its decision for immediate appeal to the North CarolinaCourt of Appeals. In February 2012, the North Carolina Court ofAppeals overturned the lower court's decision. The Court ofAppeals decision is now final. Similar actions are pending inother states. Laws and regulations governing the resale of eventtickets outside the U.S. (for example, in Europe) may be morerestrictive, and carry harsher penalties and fines, thancorresponding U.S. laws and regulations. In 2012, France passed alaw prohibiting the habitual resale of event tickets withoutpermission from the event organizer. In addition, theunauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is illegal in theU.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressedconcern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company'ssites. Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have inthe past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBayby venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessfulticket buyers. Such litigation could result in damage awards,could require the Company to change its business practices in waysthat may be harmful to the Company's business, or could otherwisenegatively affect its tickets business.

JELD-WEN: Ex-Employees Sue Over Retirement Benefit Plan Losses--------------------------------------------------------------Herald and News reports that three former Jeld-Wen employees havefiled a lawsuit against the company, alleging that a 2010amendment to the company's retirement benefit plan unlawfully costthem hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement payouts.

The lawsuit alleges that changes to Jeld-Wen's Employee StockOwnership and Retirement Plan resulted in a collective loss ofvalue approaching $650,000.

The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of the potentially hundredsof other Jeld-Wen employees scattered across the nation.

MERCK & CO: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Vioxx Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports thatMerck & Co. shareholders can go forward with a class-action suitalleging the company misrepresented the safety of its arthritisdrug Vioxx and that share prices fell when the true risk wasdisclosed.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler in Newark grantedcertification on Jan. 30 for a class of plaintiffs claiming thecompany's statements violated the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

The suit, In Re Merck & Co. Securities, Derivative & ERISALitigation, 05-1151 and 05-2367, was filed in November 2003.Judge Chesler dismissed it as untimely in 2007 but the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated it in 2008, and theU.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2010.

Judge Chesler certified a class of persons and entities whoacquired Merck common stock or call options or sold Merck putoptions between May 21, 1999, when Vioxx went on-the-market, andSept. 29, 2004, when it was pulled from shelves amid indicationsthat users faced increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The judge appointed Steven LeVan, Jerome Haber and RichardReynolds as class representatives.

In opposing certification, Merck claimed the typicalityrequirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedurewas undone by some class representatives' individualcircumstances. The company noted Mr. Reynolds did not have anyinput into his decision to purchase Merck stock, but had delegatedauthority on such decisions to an investment adviser. Merck alsonoted that Mr. Reynolds continued to buy Merck stock after thecompany disclosed the health risks of prolonged use of Vioxx.

But Judge Chesler said the circumstances cited by Merck "amount tono more than minor factual differences" which "do not destroy thefundamental similarity between lead plaintiffs' and the absentclass members' claims of injury as a result of Merck'smisrepresentations and omissions about Vioxx." Even if Mr.Reynolds made his purchases based only on an analysis of Merck'sstock price, as defendants maintain, he is not precluded fromasserting the same fraud-on-the-market doctrine that otherplaintiffs rely on, says Judge Chesler. And Mr. Haber's purchaseof Merck stock through an investment adviser likewise fails todistinguish his circumstances from those of the class under thefraud on-the-market doctrine, Judge Chesler said.

The "fraud on-the-market" doctrine uses stock price as a proxy fordemonstrating actual and direct reliance on a fraudulent statementor omission, since it is "based on the hypothesis that, in an openand developed securities market, the price of a company's stock isdetermined by the available material information regarding thecompany and his business," Judge Chesler said, citing Basic, Inc.v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

Merck also claimed that the same factual variations in the classrepresentatives' circumstances render their interests antagonisticto the interests of the class as a whole, defeating the adequacyrequirement. But Judge Chesler said the differences cited "do notremotely approach the level of fundamental conflict required todemonstrate inadequacy."

Merck further argued that the class failed to meet thepredominance standard under R. 23(b), because no showing was madethat class members relied on the company's misrepresentations andomissions concerning Vioxx. Judge Chesler cited the SupremeCourt's establishment in Basic of a rebuttable presumption ofclasswide reliance based on the fraud on-the-market theory.

The plaintiffs are entitled to invoke the fraud on-the-markettheory of reliance because Merck stock is traded on the"indisputably efficient" New York Stock Exchange and because ofthe public nature of the misrepresentations and nondisclosures atissue, Judge Chesler said. The plaintiffs need not conduct ananalysis to demonstrate the NYSE's efficiency because it has beenconsistently recognized as such by the Third Circuit and otherfederal appellate courts, he said.

Judge Chesler said issues to be resolved in the case includewhether defendants made false statements and/or omissions withregard to the safety of Vioxx; whether such statements and/oromissions related to material facts; whether such statementsand/or omissions were made with the requisite scienter; whetherclass members relied on such statements and/or omissions inconnection with their respective transactions in Merck securitiesduring the class period; whether such misrepresentations and/oromissions resulted in "loss causation"; and the economic losssuffered by the class as a whole.

Mark Levine of Stull, Stull & Brody in New York, co-lead counselfor the plaintiffs, said that "getting class certification isalways a very significant event." Brickfield & Donahue of RiverEdge and the New York firms of Milberg and Bernstein, Litowitz,Berger & Grossman also represent the class. Attorneysrepresenting Merck, from the firms of Cravath, Swaine & Moore inNew York and Hughes, Hubbard & Reed in Washington, D.C., did notreturn calls about the ruling. A Merck spokesman did notimmediately respond to a request for comment.

MERITOR INC: Class Suits Over Filters Remain Pending in Canada--------------------------------------------------------------Class action lawsuits against manufacturers of automotive filtersremain pending in Canada, according to Meritor, Inc.'sFebruary 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2012.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed alawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticutalleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliatedcorporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the company,engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This lawsuit was apurported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filtersfrom the defendants. Several parallel purported class actions,including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filedby other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the UnitedStates and Canada. The U.S. cases were consolidated into a multi-district litigation proceeding in Federal court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois. On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General ofthe State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois based on these sameallegations. In April 2012, the Company settled with indirectpurchasers for $3.1 million.

In August 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreementfor the remaining claims with the U.S. direct purchasers for $8.3million. The settlement payment was made during the first quarterof fiscal year 2013. Following this settlement, the onlyremaining plaintiffs in the litigation are those who filed theiractions in Canada.

The Company believes any liability associated with the claims ofsuch plaintiffs will be immaterial.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a globalsupplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules andcomponents serving light vehicles, commercial trucks, trailers,and specialty original equipment manufacturers, as well as certainaftermarkets.

MIDLAND FUNDING: "Funderburke" Parties to Proceed to Arbitration----------------------------------------------------------------In ANN FUNDERBURKE, individually, and on behalf of those similarlysituated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, L.L.C., Defendant, CaseNo. 12-2221-JAR/DJW, District Judge Julie A. Robinson of theUnited States District Court for the District of Kansas issued anorder on February 1, 2013, staying all proceedings and orderingthe parties to proceed to arbitration.

The class action was originally filed in Wyandotte County, KansasDistrict Court. In her complaint, Ms. Funderburke alleges thatMidland improperly obtained judgments against her and similarlysituated others as the assignee of certain credit card debt. Shealleges that the judgment against her was improper because Midlandwas not licensed to collect supervised loans under Kansas law,and, therefore, the debt was unenforceable. Ms. Funderburkefurther claims that Midland violated the Kansas ConsumerProtection Act by representing to her that the debt wasenforceable, and asserts state law tort claims for abuse ofprocess and conversion. The case was removed on April 17, 2012,under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Judge Robinson determined that the parties entered into anagreement to arbitrate and Ms. Funderburke failed to meet herburden of showing waiver of the right to arbitrate the dispute.

Judge Robinson also declined to apply judicial estoppel in thematter saying Ms. Funderburke makes many of the same arguments inadvocating application of judicial estoppel as she does in arguingthat Midland waived its right to compel arbitration. "The Courthas already disposed of these arguments," she said.

The Court directed Midland to file a status report by June 30,2013, advising whether the matter has been resolved or whetherarbitration is still pending.

A copy of the District Court's February 1, 2013 Memorandum andOrder is available at http://is.gd/RK2U31from Leagle.com.

MIRENA: Class Action or MDL Over IUD Risks Still Likely-------------------------------------------------------According to Seedol.com, although the request by the defendant inthe Mirena Lawsuit to create a Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrictlitigation was opposed by lawyers representing plaintiffs, thisdoes not mean that Plaintiffs Mirena Lawyers are opposed to aMirena Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation or Class Action.

The reason Plaintiffs Lawyers opposed the request by thedefendants to form the Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation(MDL) was because the defendant, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, requestedthat the Mirena Lawsuit MDL be assigned to a Federal Court in adistrict where they have major operations and employ many people.Plaintiffs Lawyers were successful in their opposition of theformation of a Mirena Lawsuit MDL in New Jersey.

Mirena Class Action Lawsuit or MDL Still Likely

Even though the request by the defendants in the Mirena Lawsuit toform an MDL was denied, the formation of a Mirena Class ActionLawsuit or Mirena Lawsuit MDL is still likely to occur. PlaintiffLawyers are largely in favor of the formation of a Class ActionLawsuit for Mirena or a Mirena MDL, however they do not want theconsolidation of Mirena Cases to occur in a jurisdiction that isfavorable to the defendants.

Mirena IUD Lawsuits Can Still be Filed

The FDA received over 40,000 reports of adverse events related tothe Mirena IUD Birth Control Device. This is a staggering numberof reports considering the fact that most people do not even knowthat the FDA adverse event reporting system exists. Consideringthe massive number of adverse events that were reported to the FDAdue to injuries from Mirena, the likelihood that far more MirenaSide Effects injury victims exist that were not reported.

Mirena Birth Control Lawsuits can still be filed. Regardless ofwhether a Mirena Class Action Lawsuit, or a Mirena MDL is formedor not, individual women injured by the Miren IUD Birth Controldevice can still file Mirena Lawsuits. If a mass action such as aMirena Class Action Lawsuit or a Mirena MDL is formed, women whohave filed lawsuit can elect to add their cases to the mass actionor maintain them as separate cases in the jurisdiction in whichthey were filed.

MONIER INC: Averts $250-Mil. False Advertising Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a concrete rooftile manufacturer escaped a class action seeking $250 million overallegations of falsely advertising the durability of its productson Jan. 28 after a California court found the plaintiffs hadrelied on a speculative sampling methodology to support theirclaims.

A class of 128,000 members had asked the Placer County SuperiorCourt to award more than a quarter of a billion dollars in damagesagainst Monier Inc., which the plaintiffs say falsely marketedconcrete roof tiles as "50 year" and "lifetime".

NATIONAL BEEF: Workers' Suit Gets Conditional Class Action Status-----------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has grantedconditional class action status to the lawsuit against NationalBeef by workers at its Liberal slaughterhouse.

The decision on Jan. 31 by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratilcertifies the class for purposes of sending notices to workers whomight wish to join the lawsuit filed last May.

Workers at the southwest Kansas plant are seeking unpaid wages andovertime on behalf of some 2,000 employees. At issue is thepractice of paying meat-processing workers based on so-called gangtime, which counts only the time the production line runs.

Judge Vratil has now certified a class comprised of all hourlyproduction workers who have been subject to such compensation inthe past three years. She approved Valente Sandoval Barbosa andCarolina Gaytan as class representatives for hourly meatprocessing workers.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Sued for Allegedly Concealing Brain Injury Data---------------------------------------------------------------Public Radio International reports that thousands of formerprofessional football players and their wives have filed a classaction lawsuit against the National Football League. Now, the NFLis faced with ameliorating the problem, as well as, perhaps, alegal battle that the organization could lose.

More than 4,000 former professional football players and theirwives have filed a class action lawsuit against the NationalFootball League, accusing the league of deliberately concealinginformation about life-altering brain injuries caused by playingfootball.

Attorney Gene Locks will be representing the plaintiffs. PaulBarrett, assistant managing editor at Bloomberg Businessweek, saidhe's one of the most-feared plaintiff's attorneys in the country.

"(Locks) was one of the pioneers in the massive asbestoslitigation that began in the 1970s. (He) made a small fortunerepresenting pipe-fitters and others who were exposed to asbestosinsulation and then went on to bring other mass lawsuits," hesaid.

Mr. Locks deals with damages on the order of billions of dollarsin these massive lawsuits, Mr. Barrett said.

But Mr. Locks, his colleagues and his clients face challengesahead. They'll be trying to argue against the idea that theseplayers knew what risks they faced when they became professionalfootball players.

"Lawyers call (this argument) assumption of risk, which is thedefense argument that you knew what you were getting into," hesaid.

Mr. Barrett says the players knew it was dangerous, but the NFLknew playing could cause them permanent brain damage -- andcovered the information up, or so the plaintiffs contend.

"It is impossible for the (NFL) to argue that they were unaware ofthe issue. As early as 1994, they set up a committee specificallyto study and issue reports on the issue," he said.

The committee, though, functioned mostly to deny reports of braininjury, rather than aggressively investigating the cases broughtforth, Mr. Barrett said.

"The question is, will the league at this point, proactivelyfigure out a way to settle this litigation, put more money intoresearch and treatment and move forward, or will this turn into atremendous legal food fight?" he said.

The NFL, Mr. Barrett says, is moving forward and seems to betrying to solve the problem.

The Boston Globe reported on Jan. 29 that the union representingNFL players has selected Harvard University to lead a $100 millionstudy to research, treat and prevent the broad-ranging healthproblems of these athletes.

There's a limited pool of plaintiffs in this case made up ofthousands of former players, Mr. Barrett said. Players who haverecently started playing professionally can't be added to thelawsuit because they can't argue they didn't understand thedangers of the sport.

"I think what we're going to see is that after a few rounds oflegal skirmishing, the lawyers will get together around aconference table in private and will come up with a way to setaside some billions of dollars to be paid out over many years totreat players and investigate the problem," he said.

NESTLE USA: Disputes Claims in DiGiorno Pizza Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Rachael Monaco, writing for Examiner.com, reports that in a tweetdated Friday, Feb. 1, DiGiorno Pizza informed consumers that theirpizzas are safe and in compliance with USDA and FDA requirements.In addition, Nestle USA issued a press release on Wednesday,Jan. 30, regarding the $5 million class-action filed against thecompany over their pizza brands DiGiorno, Stouffer's andCalifornia Kitchen. The class-action lawsuit claims that thecompany's pizzas contain trans-fat and are a danger to publichealth.

In the press release Nestle USA says:

"Nestle is disappointed in this lawsuit as we strongly believethat the allegations in this lawsuit are baseless. Our pizzas aresafe and in strict compliance with the requirements of USDA andFDA.

The presence of any trans fats (TFAs) are clearly listed on ouringredients labels. Since we acquired the business three yearsago from Kraft, we have worked to improve our recipes by reducingthe number of ingredients and have reduced the amount of TFAs inour pizzas by 50 percent.

FDA and USDA recognize TFAs as a lawful ingredient in foodproducts, and regulate their use and labeling.

We believe people want to make an informed choice about the foodsthey eat and understand that some people may choose to avoid foodscontaining TFAs."

ABC News reported on Wednesday, Jan 30, that Katie Simpson of SanDiego, Calif. had filed a class-action suit against Nestle's pizzabrands. Ms. Simpson's attorney, Greg Watson told "Good MorningAmerica" that "Katie has two young children and she likes to makepizza for them, and all kids love pizza. It shouldn't have a toxicfood additive that's been banned all around the world."

It is important for consumers to be educated and carefully readfood labels before purchasing products which they believe willcontain ingredients they think may be harmful to their health,including those with nut and gluten allergies. The American HeartAssociation offers an easy guide to reading food labels.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martini found that plaintiff CiserComputer Consulting lacked standing to bring the suit.

NETFLIX INC: Wants Consolidated Securities Litigation Stayed------------------------------------------------------------Netflix, Inc. is asking the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California to stay a consolidated shareholderlitigation, according to the Company's February 1, 2013, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholderclass action lawsuits was filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California against the Companyand certain of its officers and directors. Two additionalpurported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the samecourt on January 27, 2012, and February 29, 2012, respectively,alleging substantially similar claims. These lawsuits have beenconsolidated and the Court has selected lead plaintiffs. Leadplaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 26, 2012. Theconsolidated complaint alleges violations of the federalsecurities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages andother relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company'scommon stock between October 20, 2010, andOctober 24, 2011. The complaint alleges among other things, thatthe Company issued materially false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's business practices and violated accountingrules concerning segment reporting, which led to artificiallyinflated stock prices.

On February 4, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer to theconsolidated complaint and a motion to stay the litigation.Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possiblehowever, based on its current knowledge, management does notbelieve that the amount of such possible loss or a range ofpotential loss is reasonably estimable.

Netflix Inc. is an Internet subscription service for TV shows andmovies. Its subscribers can watch TV shows and movies, streamedover the Internet to their TVs, computers and mobile devices. Inthe U.S., its subscribers can receive standard definition DVDs,and their high definition successor, Blu-ray discs, delivered totheir homes.

PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit------------------------------------------------------------Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its February 1,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission that it signed a memorandum of understanding to settlea consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Courtof California County of San Diego (the "Court") by DanieleRiganello, an alleged stockholder of Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.("Somaxon") (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL). A second purported class action was also filed in theCourt by another alleged stockholder of Somaxon (Wasserstrom vs.Somaxon, et al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL). Both plaintiffsfiled amended complaints on January 18, 2013. The lawsuits havesince been consolidated into a single action captioned In reSomaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead CaseNo. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL). The operative complaint names asdefendants Somaxon, Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.("Pernix"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary PernixAcquisition Corp. I, as well as each of the members of Somaxon'sboard of directors (the "Individual Defendants"). It alleges,among other things, that (i) the Individual Defendants havebreached fiduciary duties they assertedly owed to Somaxon'sstockholders in connection with the proposed transaction describedin the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Pernix, PernixAcquisition Corp. I and Somaxon, dated as of December 10, 2012(the "Merger Agreement"); (ii) Somaxon and Pernix have aided andabetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the mergerconsideration is unfair and inadequate; and (iv) the disclosuresregarding the proposed transaction in the Registration Statementon Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on January 7, 2013 (as may be amended, the "ProxyStatement/Prospectus"), were inadequate.

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks anduncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting anyliability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants insuch litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")to settle such litigation. Subject to the completion of certainconfirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, as well ascourt approval and further definitive documentation in astipulation of settlement, the MOU resolves the claims brought inthe such litigation and provides a release and settlement by thepurported class of Somaxon's stockholders of all claims againstthe defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection withthe Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures relatedthereto. The asserted claims will not be released until suchstipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can beno assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into astipulation of settlement or that the court will approve suchsettlement even if the parties were to enter into suchstipulation. Additionally, as part of the MOU, Pernix and Somaxonhave agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to theproposed transaction in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus expected tobe mailed to Somaxon's stockholders on or about February 8, 2013.Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs insuch litigation intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees andexpenses in an amount to be approved or determined by the court.This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration tobe paid in the merger or the timing of the special meeting ofSomaxon's stockholders.

The Company says nothing in its Current Report on Form 8-K, theMOU or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admissionof the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosuresset forth herein or added to the Proxy Statement/Prospectuspursuant to the MOU.

Pernix undertakes no duty or obligation to publicly update orrevise the information contained in its Current Report on Form 8-K.

PFIZER: Faces Class Action Over Zoloft Deceptive Marketing----------------------------------------------------------A Watsonville, California woman has filed a consumer fraud classaction lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc., in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,related to the company's antidepressant Zoloft. The lawsuitalleges Pfizer deceptively marketed Zoloft as a highly effectivetreatment for depression, knowing that the drug's effectivenesswas, at best, virtually indistinguishable from that of a sugarpill. The lawsuit was filed by Baum Hedlund, Aristei & Goldmanand Pendley Baudin & Coffin on behalf of the Plaintiff, Laura A.Plumlee, and consumers nationwide and in California. The classaction lawsuit, 13-CV-00414-PSG, is before Magistrate Judge PaulSingh Grewal.

The Complaint alleges that:

"Most of the early Zoloft efficacy studies proved to be negative,failed, or were neutral. In the majority of the efficacy studies,there was no significant difference between Zoloft and placebo inrelieving depression. In some studies, placebo actuallyoutperformed Zoloft in treating depression."

"Despite its full knowledge of Zoloft's less-than-stellareffectiveness, Pfizer proceeded to falsely market Zoloft as ahighly beneficial treatment for depression.

"Pfizer deliberately crafted its drug label to mislead consumersand prescribing healthcare professionals into believing thatZoloft is more effective at treating depression than it actuallyis.

"Pfizer knew that it could turn a profit by convincing consumersand prescribing healthcare professionals that Zoloft was veryeffective at treating depression. This was accomplished not onlythrough its misleading drug label, but through a comprehensivescheme of selective publication of clinical trial data,ghostwriting positive manuscripts about the efficacy of Zoloft,paying prominent physicians (known as Key Opinion Leader or"KOLS") to tout the efficacy and safety of Zoloft, and misleadingadvertising on television and in magazines.

"As a result of its extensive and deceptive marketing efforts,Pfizer reaped tens of billions of dollars in profits from itssales of Zoloft.

"Since Zoloft's launch in 1991, Zoloft sales have generated over$30 billion in revenue for Pfizer. Prior to Zoloft's patentexpiration in 2007, which resulted in a proliferation of lessexpensive generic versions of the drug, Zoloft's annual sales wereover $3 billion annually. Since its patent expired, Zoloft saleshave continued to generate over $500 million in revenue each year.Currently, over 20 million prescriptions of Zoloft and genericsertraline are filled annually."

The Plaintiff, Laura A. Plumlee is a housewife with two teenagechildren. According to the Complaint, she began taking Zoloft in2005 for depression. Because Zoloft was not effective at treatingher depression, her dosage was repeatedly increased. Mrs. Plumleestated:

"I was led to believe this medication was very effective attreating depression. What I got was three years of false hopeswith side effects. I kept telling my doctor that I didn't thinkZoloft was helping me, but he kept telling me I was wrong. I feelduped and betrayed by Pfizer. Through my lawsuit, I hope to makePfizer pay back the money it took from me and others who boughtZoloft. I think that ought to give Pfizer and other drugcompanies some incentive to stop deceiving the public. Pfizershould not be allowed to keep money it made by dishonest means."

Michael L. Baum, a senior partner at Baum Hedlund Aristei &Goldman, commented: "People think that, if a drug has beenapproved by the FDA, it must be okay. But, as the recent spate ofFDA whistleblower cases have shown, that's not necessarily thecase." For example, Dr. David B. Ross, a former FDA medicalreviewer who blew the whistle on the antibiotic Ketek, explainedin an interview that the drug industry "has become FDA's client.People at FDA know that they have to be careful about upsettingindustry . . . even if a product doesn't work . . . there ispressure on managers that gets transmitted down to reviewers tofind some way of approving it."

According to Mr. Baum, "Manufacturers like Pfizer know this andhave taken advantage of it, despite the fact that their primaryresponsibility is to properly inform doctors and patients aboutthe benefits and risks of the drugs they market. Millions ofconsumers in the United States spent billions of dollars for adrug whose benefits were likely clinically insignificant whileexposing them to some very serious risks."

One of the experts in the case, Dr. Irving Kirsch, a director ofthe Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School (andrecently featured in a 60 Minutes segment titled "TreatingDepression: Is there a placebo effect?") noted in his book "TheEmperor's New Drugs":

"Drug companies knew how small the effect of their medicationswere compared to placebos, and so did the FDA and other regulatoryagencies. The companies found various ways to make the data seemmore favorable to their products . . . My colleagues and I hadn'treally discovered anything new. We had merely revealed their'dirty little secret'."

"In the studies Pfizer conducted to test Zoloft's efficacy fortreating depression, a majority showed no significant differencebetween Zoloft and placebo. What is also troubling is that in thetwo studies where Zoloft appeared to perform better than placebo,the difference was so small that it is unlikely to be of anymeaningful clinical benefit to the patient. My analyses of theresearch conducted by Pfizer demonstrates that the perceivedbenefit patients feel they get from Zoloft is primarily due to theplacebo effect -- the belief or hope that they are taking aneffective medication."

POWERCOR: Judge Okays Pomborneit Bushfire Class Action Settlement-----------------------------------------------------------------The Australian Associated Press reports that a judge has approveda settlement in a class action against electricity distributorPowercor over a Black Saturday bushfire in southwest Victoria.

The February 2009 fire in the Pomborneit area consumed about1300ha of farmland, including a large part of a dairy farm ownedby the lead plaintiff in the class action, Terry Place.

In December, the parties reached a settlement estimated to beworth AUD10 million.

"Having considered all of the evidence led and tendered in thisproceeding, I accept that there was only a relatively small riskof the plaintiff failing to establish a cause of action againstthe defendant," Justice Beach said in a judgment handed down inWarrnambool.

He said he had "no doubt that the settlement agreement is fair andreasonable as between the parties."

Under the settlement, Powercor will pay victims 100 per cent ofthe losses they incurred as a result of the bushfire onFebruary 7, 2009.

They will be reimbursed the full value of the property damaged,based on what it was worth on the day the fire hit.

Powercor will maintain its denial of legal liability for the fire.

Mr. Place lost fencing and a large hay shed in the fire.

About 30 residents joined the class action.

R-KANE PRODUCTS: Recalls Z Pro High Protein Supplements-------------------------------------------------------R-Kane Products, Inc., in Pennsauken, New Jersey, is recalling alloutstanding supplies of its Z PRO HIGH PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT, becauseit contains soy and milk, allergens which are not declared on thelabels of individual packets of the product. The product isdistributed in boxes containing 24 packets. The outer boxdeclares the presence of these allergens. People who have anallergy or severe sensitivity to soy or milk run the risk of aserious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consumethese products.

Z PRO HIGH PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT was distributed nationwide betweenJanuary 1, 2006, and January 24, 2013, to bariatric centers andbariatric physicians who dispense the product to patients who haveundergone bariatric surgery.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated after an FDA inspection noted that theseallergens were not disclosed on the inner packets of the product.Product shipped after January 24, 2013, contains the allergendisclosure on both the outer box packaging and the individualinner packets of the product.

Additional information on what consumers should do with theproduct maybe be obtained by calling Robert Kaskey, 1-856-663-0644(Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).

SPI ELECTRICITY: March 22 Class Action Registration Deadline Set----------------------------------------------------------------ABC reports that victims of the Kilmore East bushfire on BlackSaturday have been warned that time is running out to register fora class action in the Supreme Court.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn says 7,500 people have joined theaction, but there could be more.

After delays over finding a suitable courtroom, the trial is dueto start on March 4.

Maurice Blackburn associate Rory Walsh says people have previouslybeen told they did not need to actively participate, but thingshave changed.

He says registering will not cost anything, but the consequencesof not registering are serious.

"If the class action is successful and you haven't registered yourclaim by 4:00 p.m. on March 22 this year, you'll not be ablerecover compensation in the class action for any personal injurylosses you've suffered," he said.

"Furthermore if the case is resolved via a settlement and you'vesuffered uninsured property losses, registering with the classaction is the only avenue you have to recover your losses."

SYNGENTA CROP: 25 Tri-State Towns Get Atrazine Settlement Checks----------------------------------------------------------------WGEM reports that more than 25 Tri-State towns are getting a bigpayday in a class action lawsuit settlement over drinking water.

The company Syngenta has been ordered to pay $105 million tocommunities across the U.S. to help reimburse the costs ofremoving a weed killer from their water systems.

The case was originally filed in Illinois in 2004, but expanded toother states in 2010.

About 37 million people live in the areas served by the claimantsin this case with 1,085 cities and towns across America filingsettlement claims.

Macomb City Administrator Dean Torreson says his city got $43,429which will go into the water fund. Mr. Torreson says while thewater tested positive for the chemical atrazine, at no time wasthe water unsafe to drink.

Below is a full list of communities getting a check as part of thesettlement:

TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Defends Two Securities Suits in Kentucky------------------------------------------------------------Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is defending two securities classaction lawsuits in Kentucky, according to the Company'sFebruary 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 20 and 25, 2012, two lawsuits were filed against theCompany and two named executive officers in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedlyon behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased theCompany's stock between January 25, 2012, and June 5, 2012. Thelawsuits are captioned (i) Norfolk County Retirement System,Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary andDale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012, and (ii) Arthur Benning,Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary andDale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012. The complaints assertclaims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, alleging, among other things, false and misleadingstatements and concealment of material information concerning theCompany's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings perdiluted share and related financial performance for the Company's2012 fiscal year 2012. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest,costs, attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecifiedequitable/injunctive relief.

The Company strongly believes that the shareholder lawsuits lackmerit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. Theoutcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although theCompany does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect tothese matters, it cannot currently predict the manner and timingof the resolution of the lawsuits, an estimate of a range oflosses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of anadverse verdict in these lawsuits, or whether the Company'sapplicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage forthese claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance thatthese matters will not have a material adverse effect on theCompany's financial position or results of operations.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer anddistributor of premium mattresses and pillows, which it sells inapproximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR(R) and Tempur-Pedic(R)brands. The Company is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.

TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Has Yet to Submit Settlement Documentations---------------------------------------------------------------Tempur-Pedic International Inc. has yet to submit definitivedocumentations with respect to its settlement of a consolidatedmerger-related lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company'sFebruary 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that it had enteredinto an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") toacquire Sealy Corporation ("Sealy"), by merging Sealy with anewly-formed subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger")(collectively, the "Sealy Acquisition"). Sealy owns some of themost recognized bedding brands in the world, and manufactures andmarkets a broad range of mattresses and foundations that appeal toa broad range of consumers under the Sealy(R), SealyPosturepedic(R), Sealy Embody(TM), Optimum(TM) by SealyPosturepedic(R), Stearns & Foster(R), and Bassett(R) brands. Inaddition to traditional innerspring mattresses, Sealy leveragesits brand portfolio to also manufacture and market in the U.S. andinternationally specialty (non-innerspring) latex and viscoelasticbedding products. Sealy is also a leading global brand with topmarket positions in Canada, Mexico and Argentina. Sealy operatesthrough wholly-owned subsidiaries in the U.S., Canada, Mexico,Puerto Rico, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile and through jointventures and licensee partners in other international markets.

The Company is aware of six purported class action lawsuitsrelating to the Merger with Sealy, one in North Carolina statecourt and five in the Delaware Court of Chancery, filed bypurported stockholders of Sealy against Sealy, Sealy's directors,the Company and Silver Lightning Merger Company, a subsidiary ofthe Company (the "Merger Sub"). The six lawsuits are:

Justewicz v. Sealy Corp., et al. ("North Carolina Action") wasfiled on October 3, 2012, in the General Court of Justice,Superior Court Division in North Carolina ("North CarolinaCourt"). On November 13, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chanceryconsolidated all five Delaware actions into a single action, whichis now styled as In re Sealy Corporation Shareholder Litigation("Delaware Action"). Plaintiff in the North Carolina Action andplaintiffs in the Delaware Action allege, among other things, thatthe defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to Sealy'sstockholders and that Sealy, the Company and Merger Sub aided andabetted the Sealy directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.The complaints also claim that the consideration to be paid in theMerger to Sealy stockholders (the "Merger Consideration") isinadequate, that the Merger Agreement contains unfair dealprotection provisions, that Sealy's directors are subject toconflicts of interests, and that the preliminary informationstatement filed by Sealy with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on October 30, 2012, omits material informationconcerning the negotiation process leading to the proposedtransaction and the valuation of Sealy.

On October 12, 2012, plaintiff in the North Carolina Actionbrought a Motion for Expedited Discovery and for a Hearing andBriefing Schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for a PreliminaryInjunction. On October 24, 2012, defendants in the North CarolinaAction brought a Motion to Stay the North Carolina Action in favorof the Delaware Action. On November 7, 2012, the North CarolinaAction plaintiff amended his complaint to add allegations claimingthat the preliminary information statement filed by Sealy onOctober 30, 2012, did not provide sufficient information.Following briefing and a hearing on November 8, 2012, the NorthCarolina Court stayed the North Carolina Action. On November 19,2012, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a consolidatedamended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings, and amotion for a preliminary injunction.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits areentirely without merit.

On January 22, 2013, solely to avoid the burden, expense anduncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting anyliability or wrongdoing, the parties to the Delaware Actionentered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth anagreement-in-principle providing for a settlement of the DelawareAction (the "Proposed Settlement"). In connection with theProposed Settlement, Sealy agreed to include certain supplementaldisclosures in the information statement to be sent to Sealystockholders. The Proposed Settlement provides for the release ofall claims by Sealy stockholders concerning the Merger Agreement,the Merger, and the disclosures made in connection with theMerger, including all claims that were asserted or could have beenasserted in the Delaware Action and the North Carolina Action.The Proposed Settlement does not provide for the payment of anyadditional monetary consideration to Sealy stockholders and theProposed Settlement does not affect the rights of any Sealystockholder to seek appraisal pursuant to Section 262 of theDelaware General Corporation Law. The Proposed Settlement issubject to definitive documentation and approval by the DelawareCourt of Chancery.

The outcome of the litigation is uncertain, however, and althoughthe Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respectto these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the mannerand timing of the resolution of the Merger Lawsuits, an estimateof a range or losses or any minimum loss that could result in theevent of an adverse verdict in these lawsuits, or whether theCompany's or Sealy's applicable insurance policies will providesufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Companycan give no assurance that these matters will not have a materialadverse effect on the Company's financial position or results ofoperations.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer anddistributor of premium mattresses and pillows, which it sells inapproximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR(R) and Tempur-Pedic(R)brands. The Company is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.

TICKETMASTER: Canadians Get Checks in TicketsNow Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Updated News reports that Canadians who bought tickets forconcerts or other events on Ticketmaster's TicketsNow resale siteare getting checks in the mail as a result of a class actionlawsuit.

A court order in 2012 demanded Ticketmaster pay an C$850,000settlement.

In 2009, lawyers in four provinces -- Quebec, Ontario, Alberta andManitoba -- filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumerswho had bought tickets on the TicketsNow site.

The suit claimed Ticketmaster diverted tickets to popular eventsaway from its lower-priced portal to its ticket brokering Web siteTicketsNow, which demanded a premium price for the same tickets.

The settlement, completed late last year, provides C$36, less somedeductions for legal costs, for each ticket bought on the siteover a period of two to five years, depending where consumersbought their tickets.

Canadians who are receiving refunds bought tickets:

* Between Feb. 19, 2006 and Sept. 25, 2012, for events inQuebec.

* Between Feb. 9, 2007 and Sept. 25, 2012, for events inOntario.

* Between Feb. 17, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2009, for events inAlberta.

* Between Feb. 17, 2007 and Sept. 25, 2012, for events inManitoba.

Cheques were mailed between Dec. 28, 2012 and Jan. 25 of thisyear. But anyone who has moved since buying a TicketsNow tickethas to get their new address to the settlement agency.

In addition, Ontario and Manitoba have enacted anti-scalpinglegislation that makes it illegal to divert regularly pricedtickets to a site that demands a premium price.

TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma------------------------------------------------------------Tyson Foods, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit commenced by R.Lynn Thompson in Oklahoma, according to the Company's February 1,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter endedDecember 29, 2012.

On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in theDistrict Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma by three property ownerson behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake O' theCherokees. Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc. also aredefendants. The plaintiffs allege the defendants' operationsdiminished the water quality in the lake thereby interfering withthe plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties. Theplaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount ofcompensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.While the District Court certified a class, on October 4, 2005,the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma reversed,holding the plaintiffs' claims were not suitable for dispositionas a class action. This decision was upheld by the OklahomaSupreme Court and the case was remanded to the District Court withinstructions that the matter proceed only on behalf of the threenamed plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitutionand compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount inexcess of $10,000. The Company and the other defendants havedenied liability and asserted various defenses. The defendantshave requested a trial date, but the court has not yet scheduledthe matter for trial.

VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Class Suits v. Units Remains Pending---------------------------------------------------------------On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action lawsuit wasfiled in San Antonio, Texas, against Vanguard Health Systems,Inc.'s Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas, andtwo other large hospital systems in San Antonio. In thecomplaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital systemdefendants conspired with each other and with other unidentifiedSan Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels ofregistered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within theSan Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violatedthe federal antitrust laws. The complaint alleges two separateclaims. The first count asserts that the defendant hospitalsviolated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which prohibitsagreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiringto depress nurses' compensation. The second count alleges thatthe defendant hospital systems also violated Section 1 of theSherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits surveysfor the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registerednurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based ontheir compensation. The class on whose behalf the plaintiffsfiled the complaint is alleged to comprise all registered nursesemployed by the defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002. Thelawsuit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amountpursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.From 2006 through April 2008, the Company and the plaintiffsworked on producing documents to each other relating to, andsupplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, solely theissue of whether the court will certify a class in this lawsuit,the court having bifurcated the class and merit issues. In April2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling onplaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company believesthat the allegations contained within this putative class actionlawsuit are without merit, and the Company has vigorously workedto defeat class certification. If a class is certified, theCompany will continue to defend vigorously against the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this lawsuit was filed against theCompany in federal district court in San Antonio, the sameattorneys filed three other substantially similar putative classaction lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,Albany, New York, and Memphis, Tennessee, against some of thehospitals or hospital systems in those cities (none of suchhospitals or hospital systems being owned by the Company). Theattorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these casessaid in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in otherjurisdictions and in December 2006 they brought a substantiallysimilar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals or hospitalsystems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area, one of whichwas The Detroit Medical Center ("DMC), a Company subsidiary.Since representatives of the Service Employees International Union("SEIU") joined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing ofall four complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported inthe media, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in theseactions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt toorganize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio andDetroit. The registered nurses in the Company's hospitals in SanAntonio and Detroit are currently not members of any union. In thelawsuit in Detroit against DMC, the court did not bifurcate classand merits issues. On March 22, 2012, the judge issued an opinionand order granting in part and denying in part the defendants'motions for summary judgment. The defendants' motions weregranted as to the count of the complaint alleging wage fixing bydefendants, but were denied as to the count alleging that thedefendants' sharing of wage information allegedly resulted in thesuppression of nurse wages. The opinion, however, did not addressplaintiffs' motion for class certification and did not addressdefendants' challenge to the opinion of plaintiffs' expert, butspecifically reserved ruling on those matters for a later date.

If the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and/or Detroit lawsuits (1)are successful in obtaining class certification and (2) are ableto prove both liability and substantial damages, which are thentrebled under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, such a result couldmaterially affect the Company's business, financial condition orresults of operations. However, in the opinion of management, theultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have amaterial adverse effect on the Company's financial position orresults of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 1,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. is an investor-owned health carecompany whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operatehospitals and related health care businesses in urban and suburbanareas. The Company also owns managed health plans in Chicago,Illinois, Harlingen, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona, and two surgerycenters in Orange County, California.

XO HOLDINGS: Icahn Fails to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit----------------------------------------------------Judge Charles E. Ramos of the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork, New York County, denied the motion for summary judgmentfiled by Carl C. Icahn and other defendants, seeking dismissal ofa class action lawsuit commenced by certain minority shareholdersof XO Holdings Inc.

XO was a competitive telecommunications services provider thatdelivered an array of telecommunications services to thetelecommunications provider, business, and government markets. Amajority of XO's clients connected to XO's national networkthrough its fiber optic network, known as Wireline.

In June 2002, XO filed for Chapter 11 protection, and its Plan ofReorganization was confirmed in November 2002. Icahn converteddebt acquired during the bankruptcy proceedings into 83% of XO'snew equity and 85% of XO's new debt.

The Plaintiffs were minority shareholders of XO.

Pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, usage of the NOLs requiredthat Icahn hold at least 80% of XO's equity and voting power andthe usage of the SRLY-NOLs required that Icahn hold 100% of XO'sequity and voting power.

Judge Ramos said the Plaintiffs' allegations raise numeroustriable issues of fact with respect to the conduct of the specialcommittees in the Icahn-owned companies, and as to the fairness ofthe terms of the Transactions.

The Court directed the parties to schedule a pretrial conferencewith the Clerk of Part 53 to be held no later than Feb. 14, 2013.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.